-6

I will appreciate the moderators' input on the use of invectives in the comments below. The first comment was signaled, but no action was taken by moderators, so I wonder whether it is worthwhile signaling the second one, as it originates from the same high-reputation user.

This answer is extremely low effort propaganda. Completely ignores losses. They've lost ~3,000 already, with replacements coming mostly from those 12K stocks, which include every rusty one stored anywhere visible from a satellite.

This seems to a barely coded way of endorsing the Israeli position that those countries are "rewarding terrorism". Which goes hand in hand with your other soapboxing on this issue.

Update:
in view of the degenerating discussion in the comments, I'd appreciate clear statement of moderators, regarding inadmissibility of offensive epithets/allegations on Politics SE. A statement that the whole community could use in future for reference.

15
  • 1
    If you are going to quote a comment you should also include the question/answer it was on so we have proper context.
    – Joe W
    Commented May 23 at 13:30
  • 1
    @JoeW Context for the latter is here, I don't know of the context for the former.
    – F1Krazy
    Commented May 23 at 13:51
  • 1
    @F1Krazy I think I found the other one as well
    – Joe W
    Commented May 23 at 14:36
  • @JoeW I undid the edits, because discrediting a specific user is against the community rules. Also, I think the use of these epithets does not require context - such language is either allowed or not.
    – Morisco
    Commented May 23 at 14:48
  • 1
    The other comment is in response to politics.stackexchange.com/questions/87265/…
    – Joe W
    Commented May 23 at 15:07
  • I would disagree that calling what someone says as idiotic is different then saying that something is propaganda or soapboxing. Calling something idiotic is meant to be an insult which isn't the case with the other statements.
    – Joe W
    Commented May 23 at 18:32
  • 2
    Somewhat related, I guess politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6188/…
    – Make StackExchange GREAT 4ever
    Commented May 23 at 23:10
  • 3
    Recognize? : "the siege of Leningrad is an example of using starvation as a weapon of war, which resulted in a million deaths - you probably understand how this can be used for propaganda purposes :-)" Seems like this is an acute case of pot calling kettle, seeing as you've been bandying that exact word yourself, as well as well as various snide remarks on whoever you deem insufficiently supportive of Israel. I don't much care myself and dont bother flagging - mods r2 busy - but at least have some self-awareness before crying victimhood.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented May 24 at 23:13
  • @againstverylongusernames another attempt at cheap anti-Israeli propaganda. You can ask it as a separate question. – FourLegsGoodTwoLegsBad 18 hours ago ... @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica also the colonizer mentality,...
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented May 24 at 23:28
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica you could notice that the comment you linked below post-date this thread. Since moderators and users consider this language acceptable, I don't see why I should hold myself back from using it.
    – Morisco
    Commented May 25 at 4:56
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica pot calling kettle - not sure what's your problem with that comment. Anyhow, the question is about the SE policy, not individual behavior, so venting your personal grudges is of little interest. Note that I was against pointing specific users (see the comments above.)
    – Morisco
    Commented May 25 at 5:05
  • 3
    It's not that hard to understand, really: you, not infrequently, engage in precisely the kind of behavior you are complaining about here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented May 25 at 19:17
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica I simply don't understand what you finnd offensive about the comment you quoted earlier. Anyhow, are you trying to say that such a behavior is tolerable when practice by high reputation users towards lower rep users but not other way round?
    – Morisco
    Commented May 27 at 7:04
  • 3
    No, I am saying that the person who posted the comment you find so offensive tends to post many less such comments than you yourself have been doing in the last 5-6 months. Don't try to confuse the issue by bringing up their reputation score, it's got nothing to do with it.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented May 27 at 15:36
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica so your experience with them is different from mine. But you are still avoiding the subject: is such a behavior acceptable or not? In the former cases you have no reasons to complain, in the latter you could simply flag whatever of my comments you don't like, rather than engaging here in ad hominem attacks. the community rules apply to you as well.
    – Morisco
    Commented May 27 at 15:52

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

It's not the most friendly but I don't think all of it crosses the line. Let's break it down piece by piece.

low effort

That seems similar to the low quality term the site uses in the flagging system. Indeed it's not nice if something you do is called low quality or low effort but when it applies then it's a fairly neutral way of phrasing it.

If there's some merit to it, I think users are allowed to say something to the effect of, "(I think) this is low quality because...".

propaganda

Again, this is a specific term. According to Wikipedia:

Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.

That seems to be exactly the issue in question: the user alleged that the answer selectively presents facts regarding tank numbers.

Which goes hand in hand with your other soapboxing on this issue.

This is worse. This shows further frustration with your participation on the site. It's also not constructive criticism so it's not really actionable on your part.

Raising frustrations is not something users should raise in comments. If the commenter thinks your participation requires outside intervention then they should flag it for the mod team to review.

If outside intervention is not warranted then these kinds of pot shots only increase the existing frustrations between the users. If they disagree with your posts then they can still use the usual interactions:

  • downvote
  • leave constructive criticism in a comment
  • flag (if the post requires some intervention)
6
  • What about the whole phrase extremely low effort propaganda? Is the whole merely a sum of the parts? I understand that you are trying to defend the moderation team - but we are talking about setting the standards for the whole community. If this language is permissible, I will use it myself, and cite your answer.
    – Morisco
    Commented May 23 at 16:30
  • 3
    @FourLegsGoodTwoLegsBad I think the whole phrase is justified in this case by the quality of the answer combined with the elaboration that follows in the comment. If it was just that characterization in the comment without the elaboration then I would have deleted it for being nonconstructive. If the answer clearly didn't suffer from the issues pointed out then the comment should also be deleted.
    – JJJ Mod
    Commented May 23 at 16:45
  • I don't think opinion and propaganda are not the same thing - you are effectively accuse me if intentionally distorting facts. Moreover, the claim made in the comment is already present in the answer - about the necessity of qualitative rather than quantitative edge. Again, I remind you that you are setting a precedent for such behavior in future.
    – Morisco
    Commented May 23 at 17:53
  • 2
    @FourLegsGoodTwoLegsBad I'm not saying you're distorting facts, it's propagandistic because you are quite selective in where you put emphasis. See I can do the opposite with the same sources. Your Visualcapitalist source quotes a 2021 Russian source putting the active main battle tank fleet at about 2600, it also notes Russia lost 1,607 main battle tanks in Ukraine (listed in the picture in your answer). So by that reasoning they've already lost over half of their main battle tanks. Yet your answer says Russia does not have a tank shortage, does that mean these losses are sustainable for them?
    – JJJ Mod
    Commented May 23 at 18:12
  • my answer stresses that one can judge the situation only in comparison - if Russia lost as many tanks as Ukraine ever had, and if Ukraine suffers losses with ratio 1:1, the game is over. Hence my conclusion that only qualitative difference could make difference. IMHO, you are bo engaging in low effort attempt to misinterpret the text, which would probably collapse, if I appeal to higher level moderators. The issue may also come up when the current team is up for re-election.
    – Morisco
    Commented May 23 at 18:33
  • (Not my DV.) For the record, I had actually linked the comment I considered sopoxing. A false dichotomy (somewhat resembling a certain Bush-ism) first posted as a Q (that is currently closed--without my vote) and then repeated in the form of comments.
    – Make StackExchange GREAT 4ever
    Commented May 23 at 23:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .